Apple is claiming that a series of design patents on the iPad and iPhone -- U.S. Design Patent No. D618,677, D593,087, and D504,889 -- grant it exclusive rights to produce rectangular (with-rounded edges) touchscreen devices with a "minimalist" number of buttons. Note, the patents themselves have little text, so much of the validity debate revolves around the validity/invalidity of Apple's interpretation of ubiquitous design rights, which is not explicitly stated in the patents.

Samsung has questioned Apple's rights to "patent shapes". But it's unclear whether Samsung's legal team will be capable of invalidating Apple's patents.

The iPad looks very similar to designs seen in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey and the fan-favorite science fiction series Star Trek: The Next Generation. Both fictional visual depiction predated Apple's 2004 patent by over a decade.

2001: A Space Odyssey "tablets" [Image Source: Stanley Kubrick/MGM]

Star Trek tablets [Image Source: Gene Roddenberry/Paramount]

Judge Koh said pre-existing fictional works were not valid pieces of evidence to use in proving invalidity of design patents.

Sources reporting on the decision did not mention why the judge considered this invalid. One clear implication is that if the decision is upheld it essentially gives commercials firms open season to make real-life devices based on fictional products. For example, if a company made the iconic "golden snitch" of the Harry Potter universe, it could repatent the existing visual depiction under a new design patent and J.K. Rowling could not invalidate that patent.

II. Alternate Routes to Escaping Apple's Design Claims

Judge Koh did allow Samsung to use at least two real-world prototype or commercial design that could be integral in proving prior art.

The first allowed display is a Hewlett-Packard Comp. (HPQ) tablet -- the Compaq TC1000 -- which debuted in 2002, two years before the iPad patent. That tablet had a minimalist design, like the iPad's.

The Compaq TC-1000 (2002) [Image Source: TC-OneThousand.com]

Also allowed was photographs of Roger Fidler tablet prototype which he produced for media company Knight-Ridder.

Without its phone-space prior art (which Judge Koh banned for being "too late") and without the sci-fi prior art, Samsung faces a tougher struggle as it must rely more heavily on the handful of allowed possible prior art examples.

There's some hope that Apple may win on validity and evidence exclusion, but still lose on design infringement. To win on design infringement, the jury must accept Apple's argument that the images in its design patent allow it to patent a certain shape of electronic device.

In theory, Samsung's lawyers could acknowledge the validity of Apple's design patent, be unable to show the full history of their device development, but still argue their device did not infringe based on other factors.

For example, it could argue that it was invalid to patent shapes. If it can convince the jury, all it has to do to avoid design infringement is to show that there's substantial visual differences between the iPad and Galaxy Tab and between the iPhone and Galaxy Nexus (or other phones in question). Again, whether the design differences are sufficient to escape infringement is a subjective argument, but when viewed clearly (e.g. at a distance where you can distinguish features) Apple and Samsung's products are easily distinguished.

And it's important to remember that design is just one part of the two company's infringement claims.

III. Editorial: The Big Picture and Why If Either Side Wins, You Lose

Samsung has patented standards technologies, and is legally obligated to license Apple those patents at a "fair" rate, but is trying to shirk those responsibilities and license them at an inflated rate.

There's great danger in terms of future precedent if either side wins on any of its major claims. If Apple's design claims are upheld, it offers a slippery slope by which companies can patent certain shapes in certain sectors and gain an artificial government-enforced monopoly. If Apple's technology claims are upheld, there could be a rash of patenting and key sectors of the economy like websites (which share common algorithms and visual features) and software (which again are programmatically similar and visually similar) could be destroyed, with only a few patent-rich survivors left standing.

And if Samsung's technology claims were validated to the extent it wants them to be, the concept of affordable licensing of standards patents would be lost. This, too, is an undesirable outcome.

Depending on who wins, tech standards could be badly damaged or the internet/software (e.g. games) market could be destroyed, based on the fact that both companies' objective seemingly rely on abuse of the intellectual property system. [Image Source: BuyPoe]

The case is very significant as Apple and Samsung are two of the biggest companies in the world, so this in a sense is a very precedent-setting case.

In other words if either side achieves total victory, consumers essentially lose. Conversely, the only way consumers win is if both sides lose, at least to some extent.

Thus this is an important case to watch very carefully as the two sides battle in court, as the outcome could effect your choice of future products, perhaps well beyond the smartphone space, even.

You know, it never ceases to amaze me that on any article discussing patents, you always end up with 1 or 2 absolute retards who say ridiculous things like 'I'm going to patent the wheel' or 'I'm going to patent X' already existing device.

Whether or not you believe Apples patents are valid, it's certainty a matter for debate (or there would be no legal case). Items such as the wheel or laptop form are far more generic and are indisputably invalid due to prior art.

There is very little prior art specifically relating to the iPhone or iPad in this case, Samsung was already resorting to science fiction (and the picture Jason posted looks absolutely nothing like the iPad, by the way). Similarly, with the iPhone, it was conceived way before the F700 even existed:

The exclusion of such early and clear examples of "pre-existing" art by the Judge are a clear sign that this will NOT be a fair and proper legal proceedings. For this to take place in the US is simply disgusting. It just astounds me that the Judge continues to deny such clear and simple examples that Apple is NOT the true innovator of these basic designs. I'm not saying to not give Apple credit for making its devices....but I'm disgusted at the idea that they CAN exclude others from taking design ques in similar fashion.

A clear case of "Do as I say....and not as I do". Simply disgusting on the part of the judge. I can't help but question his ethics and impartiality. Both parities should have more than enough opportunity to prove their case....the judge is making Samsung fight with its hands tied behind it's back. More like an US In-Justice system than a Justice System.

As we all know by now, the patent system needs to be revamped where a public notice is placed and allows others time to dispute the patent request.

" you always end up with 1 or 2 absolute retards who say ridiculous things like 'I'm going to patent the wheel' or 'I'm going to patent X' already existing device."

Really buddy, what is wrong with you? You are all over every Apple article here, insulting anyone and everyone that doesnt agree with your opinion. It is possible that people can be intelligent and disagree with you at the same time.

Meanwhile here is a doozy. Apple filed a patent last year, a year before the Surface announcement, in relation to fitting a keyboard and other functionality into the iPad smart cover, including the ability to draw power from the iPad via the magnetic connector.

The next year will be very interesting. Personally I think the likeliest outcome is that Surface will be as successful as the Zune. If Apple adds some of the stuff in patent to the next Smart Cover then Surface is definitely dead in the water.

What gets me are not those who say they prefer Android or Samsung to Apple, not even those that say copying Apple is OK, it's those who show such intellectual cowardice that they pretend to think that Samsung did not try to copy Apple's products, who froth up false outrage about Apple's legal actions even though they know, like everybody with a brain knows, that Samsung tried to copy Apple's products.

Guys- get some dignity, don't hide behind deliberate lies, have the decency and character to actual argue what you truly believe and which you know is true. Because frankly anyone who actually thinks Samsung did not copy Apple must be a simple minded fool.

What also astonishes me is how many Americans have become so deranged that they actually support a Korean company ripping of an American company. Apple is a great, successful and growing American company, there aren't too many of them left, I would have thought any American with a shred of affection for their country would not want to see one of it's leading companies ripped off.

"What gets me are not those who say they prefer Android or Samsung to Apple, not even those that say copying Apple is OK, it's those who show such intellectual cowardice that they pretend to think that Samsung did not try to copy Apple's products"

What amazes me is that people like you consistently miss the point altogether. Its not that Samsung did or didnt copy Apple, because to an extent they did. They were very obvious about the Samsung logo, but clearly Apple influenced alot of products with the original iPhone... Here is the part you (pretend to?) miss. Apple copied other companies to create the iPhone. Apple copies others now as well. ALL companies do this.

Apple copied the Psion and built on it and made the Newton. Palm copied Apple and built on it to create the Pilot. Handpring split from Palm and built on the Palm Pilot to create the Treo smartphone (then later re-merged). Apple copied Palm's Treo and built on it (adding a great multitouch UI and OS) to create the iPhone. Google copied the iPhone to create Android. Today, Apple copies Android's features in its latest iPhone. ALL companies do this and always have. Not just tech, but in all industries. Who survives? The company that can build the best product and/or offer the best product for the price. This is called competition and is the base for business on planet Earth and has been since the dawn of civilization . Somehow Apple thinks they are above it all and THAT is what pisses everyone off these days.

Before you start with Apple didnt copy Android, I will repost a list (courtesy of reclaimer) of things that Apple copied from Android.

1. The revolutionary notification center of Android was a part of it from day one, nobody had done notifications like that before and eventually the competitors had to give in and adopt a similar style.

2. Over the air updates - now a standard throughout all platforms in the world this was something introduced by google from day one.

3. Widgets, Android first, copied by others later.

4. Free turn by turn navigation, once again something that we now see is being copied by competitors.

5. Social network integration - once again now a standard for all platforms!!

6. Multitasking. It took iOS three years to finally do multitasking, and it's still not on par with Android.

8. Wireless Syncing - There are several Android apps out there that let you sync your music, movies, contacts, etc. with your computer over your home's Wi-Fi connection. And they've been around almost since Android's beginning. The iPhone finally got sync with iTunes wirelessly iOS 5.

9. Opening apps from the lock screen - Android skins like HTC's sense have allowed that for years. Another iOS 5 feature stolen from Google

10. Custom Wallpapers - For the first three years of the iPhone's existence, you were stuck with the plain black background on their home screens. (Unless they jailbroke, of course.) It wasn't until the 2010 launch of iOS 4 on the 3GS and iPhone 4 that you could finally choose any photo you wanted for your background. Meanwhile, Android phones have had customizable backgrounds long before iPhone. Android phones also allow animated wallpapers.

11. Voice Recognition - Google Voice was built into Android WAY before Siri came along.

Apple is suing for vague concepts and manipulations of a flawed patent system... Its not like they invented the smartphone. All they were is first to market with a multitouch UI... yes it was great, yes it made smartphones alot funner to use. That was a great thing, now let the competition begin... And you Tony need to gain some perspective.

"What also astonishes me is how many Americans have become so deranged that they actually support a Korean company ripping of an American company."

Wrong is wrong and blindly supporting wrong due to nationality is just rediculous. That's kind of like Germany in the 30's.

Android wasn't even the first with all of those. Not saying MS was first with any of these either but they had it before Android.6) Multitasking - was present in Windows Mobile even before Android8) Wireless syncing - Zune did it first. As far as I know they WERE the first to do that.10) Custom wallpapers - Windows Mobile had this from pretty much the beginning11) Voice Recognition - Voice Command was available before and was pretty much standard on a lot of phones by the time WM 6.0 came out.

That all really just reinforces your point even more though. ALL companies copy. That's what drives evolution of technology. Someone has a good idea, someone else sees it and tries to make it better.

"That all really just reinforces your point even more though. ALL companies copy. That's what drives evolution of technology. Someone has a good idea, someone else sees it and tries to make it better."

Exactly... Companies copy what works... And even though some of that list existed before Android, Apple sees Android catching up, then surpassing it in features, and then in sales and Apple copies. I have no problem with it, it is how business has always been done... Like I said - The company that can build the best product and/or offer the best product for the price. This is called competition and is the base for business on planet Earth and has been since the dawn of civilization .

For Apple to think they are above it is the most hippocritical thing I have ever seen.

I think that at the root of this, you need to look at the way Samsung and all the phone companies were completely left behind by the iPhone in 2007. From my recollection, nothing came close to the iPhone in terms of usability or look and feel until the galaxy s which looked surprisingly like an iPhone, Apple would say too close for comfort, and in the intervening time, all handset manufacturers lost out to the iPhone significantly. Galaxy s looked like an iPhone it terms of its exterior and also in terms of the way the operating system was laid out. Obviously, in terms of usability, it was nowhere near as smooth or stable, but I could well believe that some people who were not as well read about phones would have purchased one in error thinking it was a kind of iPhone. From then on, Samsung have deliberately aped the design of the iPhone and the packaging.

The same was true with the iPad. Before it came out, you will recollect that everybody thought it would be a massive flop and described it as a big iPod touch. Now after it launched and was a huge success, Samsung entered the market with the tab and then the full sized 10" one. I really don't see it as a stretch to say that the tablet market, let alone those products would not exist without Apple.

I am not loyal to any one firm and have at times used an Android phone along with Apple's devices, but I really don't think you should be defending Samsung of all the firms. Samsung are a cut throat organisational behemoth in a great many industries and are utterly ruthless. Many of their business practices are unsavoury and would be illegal if they did the same thing outside Korea. Their aim of beating the iPhone at its own game did not consider things like intellectual property because firms from the far east do not operate on the same assumptions to do with ownership of IP as we do in the west.

Samsung copied Apple because it realised that Apple trades on the look and feel as well as intangibles like brand appeal and packaging, and since nobody in the phone space had ever sued somebody else for IP violation so they thought they were safe to copy. This was likely born out of frustration that it's products were being overlooked, but this certainly doesn't make it right. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking back around the time of the Omnia and later the Galaxy S "How on earth are they getting away with this?!?".

This issue is not so bad now with the Galaxy 3 IMO as it does look substantially different to the iPhone (some would say better) but the point on the earlier devices still stands, and you could argue that Samsung's current popularity was built on their earlier success. If Apple has an issue with the OS, then it should just sue Google, frankly but then Apple has nicked parts of the google OS such as notification centre, so they don't really have a leg to stand on.

Like I said... Companies copy what works. This is called competition and is the base for business on planet Earth and has been since the dawn of civilization.

Apply the same thing to cars. Should we all be stuck with only Ford's, because everyone copied the car and manufacturing process they built hte model T with. NO, that isnt how anything has ever worked on this planet. Someone came out with power windows and everyone copied. Someone came out with ABS and everyone copied. Someone came out with the auto transmission and everyone copied (etc etc.)

I would argue that Apple copying Palm putting a mobile OS and app ecosystem on a phone with internet access was FAR more of a blatant copy than simply adding a multitouch UI to that phone with internet access, a mobile OS and app ecosystem. Think about that.

And his point about Apple being way ahead of anything else with the iPhone in 2007...that's true. And that's why Apple made tens of billions of dollars between then and now. But eventually, they need to keep innovating and stay ahead of the curve. I would argue that the iPhone and iOS hasn't improved that much since 2007 while various Android devices (such as the GS3) have closed the gap and even moved ahead in some significant ways.

The only point I disagree with is that all companies copy. Only good companies copy. Great companies steal. Duh.

It has similarities to an iphone, just as the iphone has similarities to many other phones that pre-date.I am clearly able to distinguish major differences in the galaxy S though which I actually prefer over the iphone design, rendering your point rather moot.

As a case in point, I especially like the fact that I have dropped my Galaxy S numerous times and it has not got a single scratch or crack in the glass. That alone makes the Galaxy S substantially different and preferable to me over the comparable iphone, which is well known to crack the glass very easily.Why don't you ever mention this well established difference?This feature is part of the design that is different just as much as any other design feature else that may appear to be similar.

Of those items and features that appear to be similar, it remains exceptionally naive of you to think that Apple did not, at least in part, copy those ideas from prior devices, ideas, designs, art or intellectual property. This has already been established. Even Steve Jobs admitted that Apple is shameless about stealing ideas. You already know this, yet carry on with your questionable ranting. Beyond the obvious insulting trolling objective, your post really makes no rational sense.

Why do you admonish Samsung for stealing, while giving Apple a free pass on the exact same thing?How you can purport to identify others' 'intellectual cowardice' in this regard, whilst not acknowledging your own?

Wake up and smell the coffee, Tony.I am getting tired of shutting you down so severely.

I kindly ask that you apply your own rhetoric, take a good long honest look in the mirror and please think rather more thoroughly before you post again.

So I think it would be accurate to say that the consensus of those critical of Apple suing Samsung is that 'yes Samsung copied some stuff from Apple but that's OK because everyone does it, Apple does it and that's how things works".

I hope that's an accurate summary of what most people seem to be saying.

OK

But here is the thing - rather than a simple blanket 'it's OK to copy' position surely any reasonable person would have to say 'it's OK to copy within limits'. That there are limits to what is reasonable. The issue surely is where are those limits, who sets them, how are they decided?

It seems to me there are two broad categories where it is not reasonable to copy.

One is where a company comes up with something so unique and new that it becomes the USP for their product and they have patented it. Dyson's system of bagless vacuum cleaners might be a good example of that. In this case if it came to a court case the argument would be around whether the patents were valid and had been infringed.

Another way in which copying would be wrong is if the intention was to confuse consumers and con them into believing they were buying something they were not. As an hypothetical example, if a company, in say Korea, started making jeans that looked just like Diesel's most popular brand of jeans, gave them the same name and labelled them Diesel then that would not be OK, even though all the various bits and components that made up the counterfeit jeans were used by many jean makers and were well established and common components of jeans. Clearly the copying here is wrong. But it gets a bit more difficult when the intention is to confuse the casual consumer but it is done in a clever way, where the copy looks enough like the original to confuse the casual (and I stress the word casual because most consumers are casual) consumer into thinking they are getting A but they are actually getting B.

How could one decide on the gray areas in all this, how can it best be ascertained whether a company has infringed a patent, copied a USP in an unfair way or created a look-a-like product to confuse consumers to such a degree that it should be deemed unfair. I would say the best way is to have the whole thing thrashed out in public, presided over someone with years of experience and training and with no vested interest in the outcome. Say a judge for example. Then get a cross section of ordinary people, let's call them a jury, and let the evidence and opinions from the two sides be presented to them by trained advocates, lets call them lawyers, and then let them them come to conclusion as to whether any unfair copying has taken place.

And that is exactly what is happening. There is nothing wrong or unfair or illegitimate about what is happening in the court case involving Samsung and Apple, it is being done in exactly the way it should.

I hope Apple win, partly because I am a big fan of Apple and indifferent to Samsung's fate as a company, and partly because I think blatant copying and design cloning is bad for innovation. But I am happy to accept whatever the court decides.

I will be disappointed if Apple loses but life, and Apple, will go. And if Samsung loses life, and Android will go on, except Samsung will have to change their product design process. This trial is big but not that big.

Now - back to the Olympics. Did anyone else watch the fantastic 10,000 meters Women's final lat night? Great race.

So patenting a shape is considered within our limits? Patenting disappearing graphics is within our limits? I see where you are going with this, although your argument loses strength when its only ok for Apple to do this outside these obvious limits to set the standard. Pretty sure if Samsung had patented a shape or disappearing graphics before Apple, you would be calling bullshit...

From your posts you seem half ass intelligent, so it seems that you are purposely biased to dismiss Apples over the top attempt at a monopoly granted through taking advantage of the current legal systems misunderstanding of technologies...

"Pretty sure if Samsung had patented a shape or disappearing graphics before Apple, you would be calling bullshit... From your posts you seem half ass intelligent, so it seems that you are purposely biased to dismiss Apples over the top attempt at a monopoly granted through taking advantage of the current legal systems misunderstanding of technologies..."

Yup. Tony is another one... He thinks that [choice that benefits Apple] is > [choice does not benefit Apple] in all situations.

If it were reversed and Apple had a product that looked like Samsung's even though it had a huge APPLE logo printed acrodd the front of it he would be crying foul and saying that any fool could see it's obviously an Apple product, look - it says APPLE right across the front of it.

I do agree with one thing he said, the outcome is pointless and both platforms will go on. Regardless of who wins this case, it will be appealed and go to a higher court where Lucy Koh's choices to keep out key evidence will be irrelevant.

quote: So patenting a shape is considered within our limits? Patenting disappearing graphics is within our limits? I see where you are going with this, although your argument loses strength when its only ok for Apple to do this outside these obvious limits to set the standard. Pretty sure if Samsung had patented a shape or disappearing graphics before Apple, you would be calling bullshit...

I think you may have missed my point. What I said is that we can all agree to that there are limits beyond which copying is wrong. I also think that what all the barrack room laywers rant about, and pretend patent experts spouting stuff here is utterly irrelevant. The only fair and sensible way to judge whether limits have been overstepped is in a court of law. Which is precisely what is happeng.

I personally hope Apple win but I trust the process whatever the outcome.

quote: What also astonishes me is how many Americans have become so deranged that they actually support a Korean company ripping of an American company. Apple is a great, successful and growing American company, there aren't too many of them left, I would have thought any American with a shred of affection for their country would not want to see one of it's leading companies ripped off.

Way to hide behind the Flag Tony.I guess you must be too busy reading the iTunes terms of service to realize how un-American this statement is. Our country was founded on a set of ideals centered around the concept of freedom and not just some mass of land or language. So excuse those who are highly suspicious of the broken IP law that can't keep up with the synergies created by the global market.

You know what else is great American company? Microsoft. Should we all go buy a copy of Windows 8 and a Surface tablet? Call me traitor, but I will pass. I am equally critical of that company as well.

How about you buy a computer made in the US Tony? No? I guess you un-American since Apple makes their products in China?

Or if it was MS instead of Samsung you think we Americans should change our sense of morality? F your isolationist/quasi-exceptionalist attitude.

No, you are the deranged one sir. The iPhone was a success because of the freedom it afforded its users. Well now other companies are providing even more freedom and Apple wants to stop it. And that is what I find un-American and underhanded. So they can lick my red, white, and blue balls.

@testerguy -- what a completely ignorant comment. To say that Samsung was resorting to science fiction, as to suggest that means of a defense does not have merit. Do you know how many times science has imitated and been inspired by science fiction? Apple's patents are absolutely ridiculous, and I'm sorry, 2001: A Space Odyssey is more than enough evidence of prior art. Even without that you still have Star Trek as well.